Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Jan 27th 2013 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: I have to disagree with you here; it's ideology, not economics. The military i...
(Quote) John-336509 said:

I have to disagree with you here; it's ideology, not economics.

The military is not having problems getting people specifically into combat arms, consequently opening those fields up for women is not gaining an economic advantage.

I can't quote numbers here, but I don't think too many people walk into the recruiter's office and say, "yeah, I'd like to join the Army/Navy/Marines/Air Force, I couldn't care less what job I have, just sign me up for something." People ship to boot camp with a specific job already lined up.

There are jobs where they have problems keeping manning levels up. For instance, the Navy has trouble recruiting and retaining people to operate nuclear reactors. But I don't think the Infantry has nearly the same problem.

--hide--


I don't know what the latest quarterly figures are, but the military was paying very high re-enlistment bonuses; there was a cost to the high retention rates. In addition, as of October 2012, there have been more deaths in the Army due to suicide than to combat.

There is no question that the frequent rotations of troops in and out of the combat zones is taking its toll; bringing women into the combat arms fields would eliminate this pressure (by adding a larger pool of people to choose from). (It will open up a whole new can of worms, but that's a different subject.)

I have no doubt that feminists are pushing this as well, but as I said before when I referred to the Navy and the manpower shortages they faced some twenty years ago, I think the main reason the military is considering this is because of the manpower pressure.

Every sociologist in the world will tell you that this is a really stupid idea, but I think the powers that be have only stupid ideas left to choose from.

Jan 27th 2013 new

(Quote) Bernadette-605528 said: Agreed - the reason for opening jobs to women is not economics. In fact, the military is str...
(Quote) Bernadette-605528 said:

Agreed - the reason for opening jobs to women is not economics. In fact, the military is struggling with a huge increase in retention caused at least in part by the recession and is having to tighten standards or just raise them arbitrarily in order to force more people out, just to stay afloat.

--hide--


Bernadette,


myarmybenefits.us.army.mil


I understand that certain branches of the military may have trouble downsizing because of the recession; something came up about the Navy when I did this search.

Please note the bonuses here; the Army will pay up to $40,000.00 for certain re-enlistments. (Among those jobs considered critical by the way, is "Infantryman.") The Army is paying a fortune for re-enlistments, because many people want out after their first tour.

As I said to John, I have no doubt that feminists might be pushing this, but from the military's point of view, I suspect this is more economic than ideological.

Jan 27th 2013 new

(Quote) William-607613 said: I don't know what the latest quarterly figures are, but the military was paying ver...
(Quote) William-607613 said:



I don't know what the latest quarterly figures are, but the military was paying very high re-enlistment bonuses; there was a cost to the high retention rates. In addition, as of October 2012, there have been more deaths in the Army due to suicide than to combat.

There is no question that the frequent rotations of troops in and out of the combat zones is taking its toll; bringing women into the combat arms fields would eliminate this pressure (by adding a larger pool of people to choose from). (It will open up a whole new can of worms, but that's a different subject.)

I have no doubt that feminists are pushing this as well, but as I said before when I referred to the Navy and the manpower shortages they faced some twenty years ago, I think the main reason the military is considering this is because of the manpower pressure.

Every sociologist in the world will tell you that this is a really stupid idea, but I think the powers that be have only stupid ideas left to choose from.

--hide--

The key word (as far as re-enlistment bonuses go) here is "certain." A navy nuke could no doubt get a huge re-enlistment bonus. It was around $60k when I left the navy a dozen + years ago (so if it's down to $40k, that represents a lowering of the bonus). When I left the Infantry 3 years ago, they had more infantrymen than they knew what to do with. Granted that was the Guard/Reserve side of the house, but I doubt the Active side is hurting too badly.

I can't quickly find the exact enlistment bonus for an Infantryman right now, but it's clearly less than $15k and is highly likely to only be a fraction of that. If you look at the list of MOS's that might qualify for a bonus of up to $15k, there are a lot of MOS's that require a lot more knowlege and trainging than an 11B (Infantry).

It would not surprise me if back in the '90's the Navy opened up combatant ships to women for economic purposes. But there are some key differences between the Navy and the Army. Keeping women off of combatant ships kept them out of a significant part of the Navy, including the majority of all of the ships the Navy owned. Keeping women out of Army combat arms does not keep them out of most of the Army. Even within the Army, there are differences between the combat arms and the more technical MOS's. The entry requirments into the combat arms are not the same; you need a much higher ASVAB score to be a commo guy than a grunt. Combine that with the fact that there is more prestige in joining the combat arms than the REMF's, I don't see any reason to believe that the combat arms is hurting more for manpower than the rest of the Army. Add to that with Bernadette's point that we're in a recession, and I have a hard time believing this push is for economic reasons.

Jan 27th 2013 new

(Quote) Brian-252799 said: Its been in the news a lot lately.Your views please.
(Quote) Brian-252799 said:

Its been in the news a lot lately.Your views please.

--hide--


Personally, Brian, I don't want to see men or women in combat. But I think William is right with the
problem of enlistment vs. draft. Not enough personnel.

Also, there was a post not too long ago about socialism taking over our country and their plans how to do
it in the next 25 years. I think the equality between men and women was one of their tenets.
That reminds me of this thread "Women in Combat."

Jan 27th 2013 new

(Quote) Elizabeth-462557 said: I have heard from women who were on those ships that rape and the pressure ...
(Quote) Elizabeth-462557 said:

I have heard from women who were on those ships that rape and the pressure not to tell or complain about the rapes were on those ships, too.

- Elizabeth

--hide--


That apparently goes on in the military academies as well.

Jan 27th 2013 new

(Quote) Cheryl-409772 said: Well, the problem is that they will water down the requirements to meet a quota. If ther...
(Quote) Cheryl-409772 said:



Well, the problem is that they will water down the requirements to meet a quota. If there is no quota and they don't water it down, then more power to the one or two women in the whole country that can meet those requirements.

--hide--


Cheryl: I hope to goodness you are wrong about them watering down the tests. That will surely cause havoc and deaths.

Jan 27th 2013 new

(Quote) Tom-54311 said: Couldn't have said it better myself, Elizabeth, and I am really, really smart!! ...
(Quote) Tom-54311 said:




Couldn't have said it better myself, Elizabeth, and I am really, really smart!!

--hide--

Well, that's quite a compliment, Tom. Thank you. wink

- Elizabeth

Jan 27th 2013 new

(Quote) William-607613 said: Elizabeth,Keep in mind that we are watching an empire unravel. Every sociol...
(Quote) William-607613 said:




Elizabeth,

Keep in mind that we are watching an empire unravel. Every sociologist in the world will tell you that this is a terribly stupid idea, but I think this is literally the end of the rope. There are only bad ideas left.

--hide--


You know, William. I think those words are right on target, "watching an empire unravel." Yet, if you tell that to someone
who is liberal or an Obama lover, they will say that those words were said all throughout the history of our country.

The way the Government is ignoring the laws of our land cannot have been done all through our history, otherwise, we
would not have survived.

Jan 27th 2013 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: Keep in mind that the PT test is supposed to measure the physical fitness of the individu...
(Quote) John-336509 said:

Keep in mind that the PT test is supposed to measure the physical fitness of the individual, not the ability to perform any particular task. That being the case the standard does need to be different for the same reason that Olympic events hold men and women's events separately.

--hide--

I will agree to disagree, John. However, if I'm need to be pulled to safety, I most definitely want a man to do it because men have much stronger upper body strength which is why the PT test is dumbed down for women. You may have the last word.

- Elizabeth

Jan 27th 2013 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: The key word (as far as re-enlistment bonuses go) here is "certain." A...
(Quote) John-336509 said:

The key word (as far as re-enlistment bonuses go) here is "certain." A navy nuke could no doubt get a huge re-enlistment bonus. It was around $60k when I left the navy a dozen + years ago (so if it's down to $40k, that represents a lowering of the bonus). When I left the Infantry 3 years ago, they had more infantrymen than they knew what to do with. Granted that was the Guard/Reserve side of the house, but I doubt the Active side is hurting too badly.

I can't quickly find the exact enlistment bonus for an Infantryman right now, but it's clearly less than $15k and is highly likely to only be a fraction of that. If you look at the list of MOS's that might qualify for a bonus of up to $15k, there are a lot of MOS's that require a lot more knowlege and trainging than an 11B (Infantry).

It would not surprise me if back in the '90's the Navy opened up combatant ships to women for economic purposes. But there are some key differences between the Navy and the Army. Keeping women off of combatant ships kept them out of a significant part of the Navy, including the majority of all of the ships the Navy owned. Keeping women out of Army combat arms does not keep them out of most of the Army. Even within the Army, there are differences between the combat arms and the more technical MOS's. The entry requirments into the combat arms are not the same; you need a much higher ASVAB score to be a commo guy than a grunt. Combine that with the fact that there is more prestige in joining the combat arms than the REMF's, I don't see any reason to believe that the combat arms is hurting more for manpower than the rest of the Army. Add to that with Bernadette's point that we're in a recession, and I have a hard time believing this push is for economic reasons.

--hide--



John,

You have far more energy for this than I do.

Nobody knows with any certainty what the driving force is here; any of these ideas are opinions. I have prefaced my statements here as such, and I've simply offered some evidence to back up my opinion; you've parsed it pretty well, but I don't see your evidence.

There is probably a combination of reasons for this. My suggestion is that when a normally conservative officer corps either supports such a left-leaning idea or keeps their mouths shut about it, they are looking at very practical realities. If there was more opposition from them to this proposal, I'd say you had a point. (And no, they're not all careerists simply toeing the party line.)

I'm done here; ciao.

Posts 21 - 30 of 97